JIABS Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 26 Number 2 2003 General Introduction by Robert KRITZER ............................................................................ 201 Nobuyoshi YAMABE On the School Affiliation of AsvaghoÒa: “Sautrantika” or “Yoga- cara”?................................................................................................ 225 Takumi FUKUDA Bhadanta Rama: A Sautrantika before Vasubandhu........................ 255 Bart DESSEIN Sautrantika and the H®daya Treatises.............................................. 287 Yoshifumi HONJO Sautrantika ........................................................................................ 321 Robert KRITZER Sautrantika in the AbhidharmakosabhaÒya...................................... 331 Oskar VON HINÜBER Report on the XIIIth Conference of the IABS.................................... 385 Cristina SCHERRER-SCHAUB IABS Treasurer Final Financial Report ........................................... 391 Notes on the Contributors................................................................. 395 JIABS volume 26 Number 1 2003 • Errata .................................... 397 ARTIKEL 201 SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHA∑YA ROBERT KRITZER I. Introduction The term “Sautrantika” appears in the AbhidharmakosabhaÒya approxi- mately twenty times. In almost every case, the opinion attributed to the Sautrantikas contradicts the orthodox Sarvastivadin/VaibhaÒika position, and, as Kato shows (75-78), represents Vasubandhu’s own opinion. Sau- trantika is closely associated with DarÒ†antika, which is often considered to be either the same as Sautrantika or its immediate predecessor, and many of Vasubandhu’s “Sautrantika” opinions strongly resemble ones attributed to DarÒ†antika by the *VibhaÒa.1 Recently, however, scholars have begun to notice that some of the same opinions can also be found in the Yogacarabhumi. In this paper, I examine the occurrences in the AbhidharmakosabhaÒya of the term “Sautrantika,” refer to relevant pas- sages in the *VibhaÒa and Harivarman’s *Tattvasiddhi, and show that the majority of the positions labelled Sautrantika have correspondences in the Yogacarabhumi, most frequently in the Viniscayasaµgraha∞i on the Pañcavijñanakayamanobhumi. I also discuss the possible implications of Vasubandhu’s evident reliance on the Yogacarabhumi. I limit myself here to those passages in which the word “Sautrantika” actually appears in the Sanskrit text. There are many other positions that have been identified by commentators such as P’u-kuang and Yasomitra as Sautrantika, not to mention the more than 200 references by Saµ- ghabhadra to the ching-chu or “sutra-master,”2 a term used to sig- nal Vasubandhu’s departure from Sarvastivadin orthodoxy (see Kritzer 1 On the other hand, Vasubandhu does not agree with all the DarÒ†antika positions. It seems, in fact, as though he himself uses the term DarÒ†antika pejoratively. When he agrees with a DarÒ†antika/Sautrantika opinion, he labels it Sautrantika (see Cox 37-39, which is based largely on Kato; see also Harada). 2 I borrow Cox’s translation (56). Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 26 • Number 2 • 2003 332 ROBERT KRITZER Comparison, “Preliminary Report”).3 I also ignore references to yogacaras (practitioners of yoga) and purvacaryas (earlier teachers), except when they occur within a larger argument attributed to Sautran- tika. II. Summary of Results Of the nineteen positions that I have isolated,4 eleven involve Vasuban- dhu’s rejection of dharmas that the Sarvastivadins classify as real and independent entities, including a number of the cittaviprayuktasaµskaras (forces not associated with mind), the asaµsk®tadharmas (unconditioned dharmas), the anusayas (latent defilements), and vijñaptirupa (manifested matter) and avijñaptirupa (unmanifested matter). Vasubandhu often asserts that the functioning of bijas (seeds), themselves merely prajñapti (pro- visional entities), is sufficient to explain the phenomena in question. Other positions concern the process of perception, the nature of the Buddha’s knowledge, the reality of the past, and the possibility of a fall from arhat- ship. In a number of these cases, too, Vasubandhu appeals to either bija or the closely related idea of saµtatipari∞amaviseÒa (transformation of the life-stream)5 in his unorthodox statements. One of the nineteen positions seems to have nothing at all corre- sponding to it in the Yogacarabhumi. In two other cases, the Yogacara- bhumi contains no argument similar to Vasubandhu’s, but its general position on the subject is in agreement with his. In the remaining sixteen cases, a correspondence between the two texts is more or less clear. Six of the positions identified as Sautrantika by Vasubandhu are attrib- uted to DarÒ†antika by the *VibhaÒa; in three other cases, statements related to the Sautrantika positions are attributed to DarÒ†antika. How- 3 In an ongoing project, I am comparing every passage that Saµghabhadra identifies as the position of the ching-chu with the Yogacarabhumi and compiling a list of correspon- dences. So far, I have completed the comparison for the first four chapters of the Abhi- dharmakosabhaÒya; the results of the first three chapters have been published (Kritzer Comparison). 4 Kato identifies 17 (74-78). 5 For this translation, see Cox (95). SAUTRANTIKA IN THE ABHIDHARMAKOSABHA∑YA 333 ever, there is no mention of bija or saµtatipari∞amaviseÒa in the relevant passages in the *VibhaÒa.6 In other words, the DarÒ†antika maintains the same general position as Sautrantika but its reasoning is either unstated or different. Similarly, Harivarman’s positions in the *Tattvasiddhi, many of which probably can be considered DarÒ†antika (see Mizuno), frequently agree in general with those of Vasubandhu. However, the reasons given by Hari- varman are often different, and, again, Harivarman does not use the terms bija or saµtatipari∞amaviseÒa. III. Sautrantika Opinions in the AbhidharmakosabhaÒya and Correspon- dences in the*VibhaÒa, the *Tattvasiddhi, and the Yogacarabhumi 1. There is nothing that sees or is seen in perception: consciousness arises in dependence on organ and object. AbhidharmakosabhaÒya7 – In the verse (Abhidharmakosa I 42), Vasuban- dhu gives the accepted VaibhaÒika opinion that it is the eye that sees rupa (matter), but he uses the word kila (“so it is said”), according to Saµgha- bhadra, to indicate that he disagrees.8 Vasubandhu then examines a num- ber of other opinions found in the *VibhaÒa, most prominently that of Dharmatrata, to the effect that it is the eye-consciousness that sees rupa. As Kato points out, the commentators think that Vasubandhu favors Dhar- matrata’s opinion, but in fact, he may simply be using it to refute the VaibhaÒikas (24). At the end of the discussion, Vasubandhu ascribes to the Sautrantikas the opinion that there is nothing that sees or is seen; 6 Nishi states that there is not a single attribution of bija theory to Sautrantika in the entire *VibhaÒa (484), and an examination of the passages concerning bija that he has collected from the *VibhaÒa suggests that there is no attribution to DarÒ†antika, either (490- 494). 7 atra sautrantikaahuÌ / kim idam akasaµ khadyate / cakÒur hi pratitya rupa∞i cotpa- dyate cakÒur-vijñanam / tatra kaÌ pasyati ko va d®syate / nirvyaparaµ hidaµ dharma- matraµ hetuphalamatraµ ca / tatra vyavahararthaµ cchandata upacaraÌ kriyante / cakÒuÌ pasyati vijñanaµ vijanatiti natrabhiniveÒ†avyam / uktaµ hi bhagavata janapadaniruktiµ nabhinivesata saµjñaµ ca lokasya nabhidhaved iti (AbhidharmakosabhaÒya: 31.11-16). The references for the entire discussion are AbhidharmakosabhaÒya: 30.3-31.17; T. 1558: 10c8-11b8; La Vallée Poussin 1: 81-86; T. 1562: 363c12-368a11; Kato 23-24. 8 Saµghabhadra uses the appellation ching-chu here (T. 1562: 365a11). 334 ROBERT KRITZER consciousness simply arises in dependence on the organ and the object. There is no action here, merely dharmas, merely causes and results. How- ever, in worldly discourse one can say that the eye sees.9 *VibhaÒa10 – The *VibhaÒa attributes to the DarÒ†antikas the position that the coming together of certain factors is equivalent to “seeing rupa.”11 *Tattvasiddhi12 – Consciousness sees, not the organ. Yogacarabhumi13 – The Yogacarabhumi contains a number of statements to the effect that cognition is really the result of the laws of cause and effect, not of something seeing and something else being seen. In particu- lar, the Viniscayasaµgraha∞i on the Pañcavijñanakayamanobhumi says that, at the highest level, neither the organ nor the consciousness per- 9 Saµghabhadra identifies this as the opinion of the DarÒ†antikas. He does not use the appellation sutra-master (T. 1562: 367b25; see Kato 75). Fukuhara comments that this is very close to a Mahayana way of thinking (159). 10 (T. 1545: 61c10-11). 11 However, Kato shows that the DarÒ†antika position in the *VibhaÒa, which is fully explained in the PañcavastukavibhaÒasastra, is actually completely different from the Sautrantika position in the AbhidharmakosabhaÒya, since the factors that come together in the Dars†antika position are consciousness and dharmas associated with mind, not organ, object, and consciousness (23-24). 12 (T. 1646: 267a7-9; the argument continues until 268a10). 13 mig gis gzugs rnams mthon ba nas yid kyis chos rnams rnam par ses so zes bya ba’i bar du ji skad gsuns pa de la / ci mig la sogs pas mthon ba nas rnam par ses pa’i bar du yin nam / ’on te de dag gi